Female breadwinners are a sign of progress—not an affront to science

Fox Business throws out everything science has told us.

According to a new Pew poll, women are the primary source of income in forty percent of all households with children. In 1960, mothers were the primary breadwinners in just 11 percent of households.

Most rational people would see these findings as progress, since they suggest that women are no longer bound by the traditional gender stereotypes that have long kept them out of the workforce. They are an indication that gender equality is making strides in the right direction. At the very least, there’s no reason women with families shouldn’t have successful careers—right?

Not according to the (note: all male) commentators from Fox Business. In their analysis of the survey, the hits come early and often. In his opening summary of the research, Lou Dobbs says the Pew study finds “that women have become the breadwinners in this country, and a lot of other concerning and troubling statistics.”

Here’s a quick recap of their argument, in case you don’t want to suffer through the clip: working women are “hurting our children” and contributing to “the disintegration of marriage” by “competing” with their husbands.

But Erick Erickson’s comments on the topic are even more absurd (if that's possible). “Liberals who defend this and say it’s not a bad thing are very anti-science,” he says. “When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complementary role.”

I’m the first to advocate that we look to nature to help make sense of the world around us, but we have to make sure we are looking at the right things. We don’t look to nature for rules and absolutes to dictate our behavior; instead, we find the flexibility that other species are capable of and the broad range of problems that evolution has solved. From bioinspired materials to the incredible ways animals thrive in tough environments, using science to understand the natural world should open our minds, not close them.

But at the same time, we aren’t seahorses, albatrosses, or bears; we’re humans. And some of the hallmarks of human culture are ethics, morals, personal responsibility, and the ability to evaluate our own behavior. By Erickson’s argument, we could—and perhaps even should—condone murder, theft, rape, and promiscuity, since animals engage in these behaviors with reckless abandon. But we don’t. While we owe some of our behavior to evolution, we aren’t bound by it.

As is often the case with biased political commentary, the Fox Business panel doesn’t even seem to have read the poll. Erickson claims that “three-quarters of the people surveyed recognize that having moms as the primary breadwinner is bad for kids and bad for marriage, and reality shows us that’s the truth.” In reality, what three-quarters of the respondents said is that having women work has made it harder for parents to raise children. However, the participants also made it resoundingly clear that female breadwinners are not “bad for marriage.” When asked whether they think that it is better for a marriage when a husband earns more than his wife, a whopping 63 percent of respondents disagreed.

Moreover, the Pew study finds that families in which females are the primary breadwinner actually tend to be better off financially. In households where the mother is the primary source of money, the median family income is about $80,000. Households where the father is the primary breadwinner average about $2,000 less per year, and households where the spouses' income is the same average about $10,000 less.

Juan Williams laments that hard economic times have brought about this “disintegration of marriage,” claiming that men were hit harder by the recession than women were. And there’s actually some evidence to back this up (at least the latter claim). Research has suggested that financial trouble may drive the trend of female breadwinners, and a 2012 Pew study found that mothers’ views about whether (and how much) they should work have changed significantly since 2007, when the recession began. In other words, females are stepping up and joining the workforce to provide for their families in a hurting economy.

So if this issue has anything at all to do with science, it backs up what we see in nature. In the natural world, selection occurs at the individual level, meaning that animals must behave in their own best interest in order to survive and reproduce. If Erickson wants to look to animals and stereotypes about conventional sex roles, females are doing just as nature intended: they’re doing what they can to ensure the survival of their offspring when times are lean. These are the females—and the offspring—that thrive and contribute to future generations.

Williams concludes his tirade by warning that this trend “is going to have an impact for generations to come.” I, for one, hope he’s right. Because seeing a growing number of female breadwinners is going to show our daughters that they, too, can have rewarding careers. It’s going to teach our sons that women are productive and valuable members of society. And, of course, it’s going to continue to send closed-minded, misogynistic political commentators into a blind and idiotic panic.

When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

I see they've never heard of the angler fish. Poor little guys... But seriously, how in the world did they draw this conclusion by looking at nature, other than only seeing what they want to see?

Well, not to defend them, but they did say "typically". Things like the Angler fish are exceptions to the rule in the animal kingdom.

The general rule in the animal kingdom is either asexual reproduction or no role for the male beyond fertilization (unless you count being a potential snack for the female as a role). Males with more involvement than that are the exception, and within those exceptions there's a wide variety of roles from "sticks around for the food" to "provides all of the brood care with no female involvement." Everything about the "males typically have the dominant role" assertion is wrong.

7737 posts | registered Jan 17, 2009

Kate Shaw Yoshida
Kate is a science writer for Ars Technica. She recently earned a dual Ph.D. in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior from Michigan State University, studying the social behavior of wild spotted hyenas. Emailkate.shaw@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KateYoshida

When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

I see they've never heard of the angler fish. Poor little guys... But seriously, how in the world did they draw this conclusion by looking at nature, other than only seeing what they want to see?

"As is often the case with biased political commentary, the Fox Business panel doesn’t even seem to have read the poll."

This is pretty much the problem with all debates on sex & gender and politics: it's usually very one sided because Team A shows up without having done any of the homework. "A" stands for Angry, btw, which is what most of these whining "women can't do that" trolls are.

When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

I see they've never heard of the angler fish. Poor little guys... But seriously, how in the world did they draw this conclusion by looking at nature, other than only seeing what they want to see?

In households where the mother is the primary source of money, the median family income is about $80,000. Households where the father is the primary breadwinner average about $2,000 less per year, and households where the spouses' income is the same average about $10,000 less.

Wait, what? Last I checked, overall median family income isn't anywhere near $70K, much less $78K or $80K - not if you limit it by region, not if you limit it by household size, pretty much not at all period. Are they limiting by race or something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_ ... ian_income

When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

They've never owned a hummingbird feeder.

And yet these same folks will say that the rather wide range of animals that displays homosexual behavior shouldn't apply to humans.

In households where the mother is the primary source of money, the median family income is about $80,000. Households where the father is the primary breadwinner average about $2,000 less per year, and households where the spouses' income is the same average about $10,000 less.

Wait, what? Last I checked, overall median family income isn't anywhere near $70K, much less $78K or $80K - not if you limit it by region, not if you limit it by household size, pretty much not at all period. Are they limiting by race or something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_ ... ian_income

I think there's something wrong with this webpage. I get to Lou Dobbs in the third paragraph, and everything just goes red and there's an ear-piercing shriek before I hear someone weaving a tapestry of obscenities at incredibly loud volume even with my speakers muted..

I’m used to conservatives mangling science and telling us that their lies are true, and Erickson does not disappoint. Listening to that I turned purple and tried to blurt out four sentences simultaneously, and then my larynx exploded and my brains geysered out my ears.

It’s not true! Many species exhibit different patterns of dominance, and some have no system of dominance at all. It’s quite common for females to be larger than males, for instance. Erickson is claiming that something common in primates is a universal.

NATURALISTIC FALLACY, ASSHOLE!

You don’t get to spend your pundit career blithering about human (and American) exceptionalism and then turn around when it’s convenient to your argument to point to some monkey over there and say, “See? That’s the natural order!”

Erick Erickson is one hella confused dingleberry. Why does anyone listen to a biblical literalist pontificating about science?

If I tried to claim Fox noise was right my wife would put me right back in to my place. :-D

Joking aside, I really wonder if these guys can actually hear themselves talk. I don't exactly look to Fox news for paragons of balanced, fair, unbiased gender or racially neutral (or religously neutral for that mater) "news" or opinions...but sometimes they at least make the effort that they aren't a, nearly, all boys club from 1890's deep south.

This would be one of those times they don't even make the effort.

I'd love it if my wife made more money than me (or as much). It would make me a lot less stressed about making sure I keep my very nice job. Not that I'd toss it to the wind...but I certain do stress sometimes that I am the only real breadwinner in my family (my wife just went back to work as a part time instructor. Salary imbalance is about 60:1 right now even when you take in to account her benefits. It is VERY occasional work. Counting down the days for the youngest to be in kindergarden so my wife can pickup more part time work and/or go back to work full time. Then it might only be a 2:1 salary imbalance).

Only women taller than me make me feel insecure (I try to tell myself that is because I am nearly 6'2" and there are very few women that tall), not women who make more money than me.

When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

I see they've never heard of the angler fish. Poor little guys... But seriously, how in the world did they draw this conclusion by looking at nature, other than only seeing what they want to see?

Well, not to defend them, but they did say "typically". Things like the Angler fish are exceptions to the rule in the animal kingdom.

I dunno, I guess it depends on what he means by dominant. The Angler fish certainly is an outlier, but there are way more exceptions. Lionesses are the main huntresses of the species, ant and bee colonies are centered around females, etc. Typical would be pretty odd phrasing nonetheless.

When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role.

I see they've never heard of the angler fish. Poor little guys... But seriously, how in the world did they draw this conclusion by looking at nature, other than only seeing what they want to see?

Well, not to defend them, but they did say "typically". Things like the Angler fish are exceptions to the rule in the animal kingdom.

The general rule in the animal kingdom is either asexual reproduction or no role for the male beyond fertilization (unless you count being a potential snack for the female as a role). Males with more involvement than that are the exception, and within those exceptions there's a wide variety of roles from "sticks around for the food" to "provides all of the brood care with no female involvement." Everything about the "males typically have the dominant role" assertion is wrong.

By Erickson’s argument, we could—and perhaps even should—condone murder, theft, rape, and promiscuity, since animals engage in these behaviors with reckless abandon.

I was unaware that animals did all this. Care to point me to a scientific study showing animals raping other animals and murdering animals of the same species (I've always read that usually when there are fight among them, one usually backs-off to survive and it was rarely that they fought to death)?

No links on my fingers to give (sorry) but certain species of ducks are known for being pretty rape-y, probably the main reason why duck vaginas can get so big and complicated.

When you look at biology, look at the natural world—the roles of a male and a female in society in other animals—the male typically is the dominant role.

Nobody tell them that homosexuality occurs in nature or their heads may explode.

I'd swear I remember reading something about someone telling one of these guys (I generalize "these guys" as a "commentator of similar views") that once and they claimed if that was even true, it must have been activists who made the animals gay.

I am probably making that up though...but it so seems like something they'd say in response.

Question: on the ingentaconnect linked article the abstract (note- full article was marked as not available for download so can only go by abstract text) seemed to be saying that both parents had a higher rate of engagement with the kids when the mother worked, not when both were working as you seemed to say in the article.

Quote:

parents tend to spend more time playing with their kids and helping with their homework in families where both parents work

Not sure what the details in the actual study were, but I'd guess there's a definite distinction between families with only the female working vs families with both parents working. Seems like in general moms are willing to put interaction with children slightly higher on their priorities (ie spend more time after a long day at work). If you have the actual study I'd be interested in knowing more of those details.

We're also kinda missing forest for trees in some ways here - the biggest issue comparing the number of SAHMs from the 50s or 60s to the number of SAHMs today may not have much to do with being more "liberated" today; a lot of it is the simple fact that the economy doesn't permit many families to get by on a single income.

I'm sole breadwinner for my family (by design and like it that way), but I'm extremely fortunate to be able to manage it. I have very marketable talents, work my ASS off a bunch of odd hours, and frankly needed a good bit of luck to go along with the talent and work in order to get where I am. Not everybody can manage that. I didn't always manage that. I was working poor for a long, long time - and "median poor", meaning no way in HELL was I earning enough to support a family on my own, for a long time after that.

Is that just "OK" now? Are we better off HAVING to have every adult in the household work, just to get by, small kids or no small kids? And WHY is it so much harder just to survive now? These are the questions I'd like to see get addressed.

(In before "you're a reactionary trogolodyte who hates women": I voted Obama in both elections, I own and wear an "It Gets Better" shirt, and I'm constantly worrying about what unconscious gender shaping in society is likely to do to my daughter's health and happines as she grows up.)

So I see an article titled "Are female breadwinners “anti-science?” Of course curiosity piqued. Then I read that the statement was essentially made by a Fox TV personality. Then I watch the video, suddenly I am angry at Obama and pro guns for no reason.

I'm pretty sure if looks could kill the interview would have been over in the first 10 seconds as laser beams would have blasted Erick Erickson to ash like Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.

Not to dispute anything said in that video at all, but why did they cut out the last part of the interview? Unless he went way off topic again, it suddenly looks like a very biased portrayal of what was actually said...

In households where the mother is the primary source of money, the median family income is about $80,000. Households where the father is the primary breadwinner average about $2,000 less per year, and households where the spouses' income is the same average about $10,000 less.

Wait, what? Last I checked, overall median family income isn't anywhere near $70K, much less $78K or $80K - not if you limit it by region, not if you limit it by household size, pretty much not at all period. Are they limiting by race or something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_ ... ian_income

The answer is in the Pew report: "The median total family income of married mothers who earn more than their husbands was nearly $80,000 in 2011, well above the national median of $57,100 for all families with children, and nearly four times the $23,000 median for families led by a single mother."

By Erickson’s argument, we could—and perhaps even should—condone murder, theft, rape, and promiscuity, since animals engage in these behaviors with reckless abandon.

I was unaware that animals did all this. Care to point me to a scientific study showing animals raping other animals and murdering animals of the same species (I've always read that usually when there are fight among them, one usually backs-off to survive and it was rarely that they fought to death)?

No links on my fingers to give (sorry) but certain species of ducks are known for being pretty rape-y, probably the main reason why duck vaginas can get so big and complicated.

A large number of species are.

As for the murder bit, a lot of animals with physical "duals" to win mates often end up leaving the loser dead. Not always and not the majority of the time, but a significant minority of the time mating duals leave the loser dead. I'd consider that murder.

Or as many species where the female eats the male after copulation. From my own personal perspective, I'd consider that "murder". In some species with pack behavior when the alpha grows old a lesser member might challenge it for dominance of the pack in which case it is often even money that if the lesser member wins leadership of the pack that the former alpha is killed, driven off or is subverted in to a lesser role within the pack.

A lot of species are also highly territorial and will kill other's of its species if they find interloopers.

By Erickson’s argument, we could—and perhaps even should—condone murder, theft, rape, and promiscuity, since animals engage in these behaviors with reckless abandon.

I was unaware that animals did all this. Care to point me to a scientific study showing animals raping other animals and murdering animals of the same species (I've always read that usually when there are fight among them, one usually backs-off to survive and it was rarely that they fought to death)?

Read up on dolphins. They may have a good reputation, but they're pretty much the dickbags of the sea.

They'll kill competing young. Low-order males will band together and hold females captive for extended periods for sexual gratification. They're not quite bonobo-level hedonists (on that subject, bonobos would consider pretty much anything you see in pornographic movies to be an idle passtime), but they definitely engage in sex for pleasure, and not necessarily in reproductive configurations. They'll coordinate between pods to fish...then one pod will run the other off.

Bonobos...well, they're probably the world champs at sexual gratification, often without concern for gender, time, location. They've even been seen to engage in prostitution, in effect: one bonobo will engage in sex with another for some resource, like a particularly desireable fruit.

Relatedly, but on the other side, chimpanzees are often complete bastards. If one chimp's lady-chimp-love has a child by another male, a male might well kill the infant to send her back into estrus. They've been seen to kill other species for no apparent reason other than, apparently, for shits and giggles.

Have you ever seen deer interact? People think of them as cute and all. They're not really equipped to be complete fuckwads, but it's not uncommon to see bucks running off other buck's offspring when dominance changes, presumably to ensure resources for their own (and availability of the does).

Every animal on earth, when you get down to it, have an immense capability for assholish behavior. Humans are just better at it than most.

...of course, it’s going to continue to send closed-minded, misogynistic political commentators into a blind and idiotic panic.

Blind and idiotic panics by members of the media, in a lot of cases, can actually foster the realization that the reasoning in question is in fact blind, panicky, and irrational in the minds of people on the fence.

I say let them spout whatever sensationalist tripe they see fit. The more idiotic they seem to more people, the better.

By Erickson’s argument, we could—and perhaps even should—condone murder, theft, rape, and promiscuity, since animals engage in these behaviors with reckless abandon.

I was unaware that animals did all this. Care to point me to a scientific study showing animals raping other animals and murdering animals of the same species (I've always read that usually when there are fight among them, one usually backs-off to survive and it was rarely that they fought to death)?

No links on my fingers to give (sorry) but certain species of ducks are known for being pretty rape-y, probably the main reason why duck vaginas can get so big and complicated.

A large number of species are.

As for the murder bit, a lot of animals with physical "duals" to win mates often end up leaving the loser dead. Not always and not the majority of the time, but a significant minority of the time mating duals leave the loser dead. I'd consider that murder.

Or as many species where the female eats the male after copulation. From my own personal perspective, I'd consider that "murder". In some species with pack behavior when the alpha grows old a lesser member might challenge it for dominance of the pack in which case it is often even money that if the lesser member wins leadership of the pack that the former alpha is killed, driven off or is subverted in to a lesser role within the pack.

A lot of species are also highly territorial and will kill other's of its species if they find interloopers.

Male lions (and maybe other species) will kill the offspring of another male when they take over a pride. I know they're not thinking murder, but if a human did it, we would consider it so.